NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically I had originally proposed an idea titled “Disaster Assistance Liability for Engineers” that eventually became a “Global Disaster Assistance” proposal. The proposal was deleted by one of the game moderators and later ruled (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7057325&postcount=16) to represent two different proposal categories (International Security and Moral Decency).

I still would like to work on both proposals, but obviously I’m going to need help to avoid hitting any future hidden mines. I’d like to actually focus on the second / smaller half first: the Good Samaritan Laws (Moral Decency).

Here is the original text of the proposal that was deleted:


Global Disaster Assistance
A resolution to restrict political freedoms in the interest of law and order.

Category: Political Stability
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING its resolution, the IRCO, adopted Sep. 1, 2003, which established the voluntary funded International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) for United Nations members in order to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens”;

OBSERVING that in addition to medical and law enforcement personnel, that these first response teams include technical and engineering professionals who in many non-emergency situations may be highly regulated by domestic liability laws;

MAKING NOTE that of the existence of many other national and international disaster assistance programs in addition to the IRCO;

NOTING WITH APPROVAL the many nations, including both UN members and non-members, which have entered into bi-lateral agreements to provide local and regional disaster assistance;

CONCERNED that these disaster assistance programs are limited in their effectiveness to send both first response teams and long-term disaster recovery teams due to the lack of pre-existing bi-lateral and unilateral arrangements, such as arrangements concerning the liabilities associated with all personnel in the volunteer response and recovery teams;

1. ENCOURAGES all nations, including UN non-members, to lend whatever aid possible in the event of a disaster;

2. EXPRESSES ITS HOPE that nations will continue to enter into local and regional arrangements to prepare for and lend aid to one another in the event of a disaster;

3. DIRECTS the IRCO to set up an international aid clearing house to inventory the capabilities of existing national and international disaster assistance programs;

4. AUTHORIZES the IRCO to expand its role beyond lending first response teams to nations in need to developing additional disaster assistance programs focusing on long-term disaster recovery;

5. SUGGESTS that nations receiving any disaster assistance to appoint a single organization or office of their government to act as a coordination group in the event that multiple national or international disaster recovery and assistance teams are working together; and

6. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers.

I’ve highlighted the parts I feel focus around “Good Samaritan” laws. Though I am actually sad that the entire proposal was ruled illegal, I still would very much like to address both ideas in two separate proposals. Please make suggestions, as tomorrow I’ll post a new “Good Samaritan Laws” draft here that will expand upon clause 6.

Would the immunity extend to teams from the same country? Or to anyone who comes to help in a voluntary capicty? Or would it just be restricted to those who had a suitable amount of training for the job at hand?

Further to that will there be an internationally agreed standard as to what suitable training constitutes?

Would the immunity extend to teams from the same country? Or to anyone who comes to help in a voluntary capicty? Or would it just be restricted to those who had a suitable amount of training for the job at hand?

Further to that will there be an internationally agreed standard as to what suitable training constitutes?

Good questions, and this will help me add some meat to this smaller proposal. Thanks! :)

The decision on who is accepted to be a volunteer and who is politely (or rudely) dismissed, should be decided by the nation that was hit by the disaster.

The immunity should naturally then extend only to officially recognized disaster assistance teams.

Taking an example from the news:

Hurricane Jeanne killed around 622 people in the "imaginary" country of Haiti. Many buildings were destroyed and flood waters are still receeding (sp?). The local government is describing the situation as catastrophic and claiming that survivors "need everything from potable water to food, clothing, medication, and disinfectants." (taken from Today's Sac Bee ... another "imaginary" source)

UN peacekeeping forces (not NationStates UN, but this "imaginary" body's peacekeeping forces) have been in Haiti since Feb. 2004 (due to a political revolt), so the UN has been sending aid. The US (yet another "imaginary place") has announced it would send $60,000 in immediate relief.

Now most of this type of relief is going to be food and supplies. But it will be carried to Haiti by US military personnel. Wouldn't it first be up to the government in Haiti to decide which Americans it wants on its soil? Second, wouldn't the US be more likely to send qualified engineers (in this case your standard engineers corps) to not only help with moving the food, but to also help repair buildings and bridges?

The idea behind good samaritan laws being placed on the books is they save lives. While Haitian first responders may be covered against liability suits, UN and US responders are most likely granted protection on a case-by-case basis.

[OOC: In 2003 I nearly traveled to Mexico to volunteer my services after a devastating earthquake it the south-western portion of the country. Unfortunately my expertise is really linked to water quality and I would feel qualified to make judgements related to levee stability ... if I had limited immunity. But without something like that, most engineers would err on the $ide of extreme caution ... which isn't always the best solution.] ;)

The decision on who is accepted to be a volunteer and who is politely (or rudely) dismissed, should be decided by the nation that was hit by the disaster.

The immunity should naturally then extend only to officially recognized disaster assistance teams.



Which I have no problem with. It is just that if the nation is going to grant immunity it would have to be because they feel the people who come are not likely to do more harm than good.
Even though I am not one for suing people, if someone came in after a disaster of epic proportions in TilEnca, and actually ended up making things worse, then I might feel inclined to deal with them harshly.
Also (and this is more of a paranoid note) anyone who has a reason to wish harm on my country could use the excuse of a national disaster to do more damage. This is obviously something I would wish to prevent :}

And I take it the immunity only extends to liability in respect to the work they are doing for disaster relief? I mean if they come to help with the disaster, and while they are there go on a stealing spree or a killing spree, I am allowed to prosecute them for those actions?

And I take it the immunity only extends to liability in respect to the work they are doing for disaster relief? I mean if they come to help with the disaster, and while they are there go on a stealing spree or a killing spree, I am allowed to prosecute them for those actions?

Exactly! :)

This is afterall a moral decency proposal at heart, but it is designed to promote "sensible" conduct that hopefully will save lives ... not endanger them.

I'll break that clause 6 into a few clauses tonight and make it clear that this limited liability only relates to work done directly in response to lending professional assistance in response to the disaster.

Good Samaritan Laws
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING its resolution, the IRCO, adopted Sep. 1, 2003, which established the voluntary funded International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) for United Nations members in order to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens”;

OBSERVING that in addition to medical and law enforcement personnel, that these first response teams include technical and engineering professionals who in many non-emergency situations may be highly regulated by domestic liability laws;

CONCERNED that international disaster assistance programs like the IRCO as well as volunteer disaster assistance teams sent by other nations are limited in their effectiveness to quickly respond to disasters and emergency situations due to the lack of pre-existing disaster assistance arrangements, such as arrangements concerning the liabilities associated with volunteer response and recovery teams carrying out emergency aid;

1. AFFIRMS the right of nations responding to offers of disaster assistance to decide which offers to accept and which offers to refuse;

2. PROCLAIMS that nations responding to offers of disaster assistance also have the right to refuse assistance from specific individuals and / or types of aid;

3. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to civil liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers; and

4. DECLARES that the immunity to liability associated with rendering aid applies only to work associated in disaster or emergency assistance, and that all other normal domestic laws should apply to these individuals.

The following is a summary of what is new and why I changed it.

Good Samaritan Laws
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity


Cog ruled that the last clause was a moral decency proposal, because it restricts citizens rights to sue the people that help them. Please read the entire proposal, because my edits may have unfortunately changed that again. I hope not ...


Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING its resolution, the IRCO, adopted Sep. 1, 2003, which established the voluntary funded International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) for United Nations members in order to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens”;


There are no changes here, but I felt that a good story needs an introduction ... that being international aid and establishing proof that it exists.


OBSERVING that in addition to medical and law enforcement personnel, that these first response teams include technical and engineering professionals who in many non-emergency situations may be highly regulated by domestic liability laws;


This is also unchanged, but I want nations to be aware that there is some diversity in the types of aid provided to other nations. This is why we need laws addressing the efficiency of aid.


CONCERNED that international disaster assistance programs like the IRCO as well as volunteer disaster assistance teams sent by other nations are limited in their effectiveness to quickly respond to disasters and emergency situations due to the lack of pre-existing disaster assistance arrangements, such as arrangements concerning the liabilities associated with volunteer response and recovery teams carrying out emergency aid;


I may need to check the grammar on this preamble, but I made some changes there. I dropped the references to long-term disaster recovery. I'll address that in an international security proposal later.

Instead I'm focusing on the fact that these people are often volunteers and without the laws less effective. Basically this is another justification for changing our laws ... it will save lives.


1. AFFIRMS the right of nations responding to offers of disaster assistance to decide which offers to accept and which offers to refuse;


This was added in response to TilEnca's question. My government feels that our governments always have had the right to say no. This proposal is not seeking to change that. This is simply a statement of basic sovereign rights, and does not apply to any UN category.


2. PROCLAIMS that nations responding to offers of disaster assistance also have the right to refuse assistance from specific individuals and / or types of aid;


TilEnca also posed a very good question: Can we pick and choose who comes to our countries? Yes, a nation has always had a sovereign right to do this. This proposal won't change that, thus no UN category applies here.


3. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to civil liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers; and


This is basically the real "meat" of the proposal. It says, all nations should (hence mild strength) change their domestic laws to prevent its citizens from sueing volunteer emergency response personnel / first responder teams. Normally our nations have teams of lawyers or other legal professionals whom protect our government employees, but our governments don't have standardized rules for private citizens or foreign aid workers. These laws will make it easier for other nations and private citizens to lend a hand ... but the above clause (#2) states that our governments can pick and choose only the best.

Analysis: I'm basically taking away a very small civil liberty from your citizens, but I'm suggesting we do this in order to save lives. Recent hurricanes and past terrorist attacks illustrate how many lives count on split second decisions by governments! Please join my government in protecting human life!


4. DECLARES that the immunity to liability associated with rendering aid applies only to work associated in disaster or emergency assistance, and that all other normal domestic laws should apply to these individuals.

This is new, but answers a question that has been raised by several nations. We don't want to create a "class" of people above all laws. All we are doing is limiting their civil liability associated with acts done in rendering aid. If an aid worker robs a liquor store while on his / her break, they are subject to the same laws as you and I. Analysis: no status change for anything in our nations, hence no UN category applies.




OK, I could have missed something. *mutters something about how EVIL the "Gods" are and how they are best treated with the same iron fist they use to rule over the poor lives of the citizens of the CCSM*

And yes, there is a new religion in the Confederated City States of Mikitivity, called interestingly enough "Godmoding", and this religion is built upon the belief that actually all life in NationStates is just a game, but a game controlled by an all powerful and extremely EVIL elder race called "the Mod Gods", who love to come in and sometimes play mean tricks on humble UN amabassadors, thus it is a tradition in all CCSM meetings to begin the business part of the meeting by saying, "Oh Mods, you may rule with an iron fist, but this does not matter to a people of iron will!" <--- I'm just punishing a good deed here. ;)

Good Samaritan Laws
A resolution to restrict civil freedoms in the interest of moral decency.

Category: Moral Decency
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Mikitivity

Description:
The NationStates United Nations,

RECALLING its resolution, the IRCO, adopted Sep. 1, 2003, which established the voluntary funded International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) for United Nations members in order to be “the first response team to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and any other events which threaten the lives of citizens”;

OBSERVING that in addition to medical and law enforcement personnel, that these first response teams include technical and engineering professionals who in many non-emergency situations may be highly regulated by domestic liability laws;

CONCERNED that international disaster assistance programs like the IRCO as well as volunteer disaster assistance teams sent by other nations are limited in their effectiveness to quickly respond to disasters and emergency situations due to the lack of pre-existing disaster assistance arrangements, such as arrangements concerning the liabilities associated with volunteer response and recovery teams carrying out emergency aid;

1. AFFIRMS the right of nations responding to offers of disaster assistance to decide which offers to accept and which offers to refuse;

2. PROCLAIMS that nations responding to offers of disaster assistance also have the right to refuse assistance from specific individuals and / or types of aid;

3. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to civil liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers; and

4. DECLARES that the immunity to liability associated with rendering aid applies only to work associated in disaster or emergency assistance, and that all other normal domestic laws should apply to these individuals.

[This section of my post is Out-Of-Character.]

I have read the proposal carefully, including clauses 1 and 2, and my judgement is that this is in full compliance with NationStates rules.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

...

[This section of my post is In-Character.]

In regards to clause 3: "...provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers."

I trust that this is, partly, to deal with unscrupolous individuals who might want to use the situation to inflict harm upon someone, correct?

In an emergency situation, one sometimes has to committ dangerous acts to save lives. You know it's dangerous, you recognize the danger, and there's a significant chance that what you're going to do is not going to work, but if you don't do it, then someone is going to die. "Desperate times call for desperate measures."

Disregarding a danger because you want to get someone killed is one thing; disregarding a danger because there's nothing you can do about it and you need to brave the danger to save someone is something different.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
Founder and Delegate of The Realm of Ambrosia

In an emergency situation, one sometimes has to committ dangerous acts to save lives. You know it's dangerous, you recognize the danger, and there's a significant chance that what you're going to do is not going to work, but if you don't do it, then someone is going to die. "Desperate times call for desperate measures."


This would come under what I think of as the "three laws of robotics" clause - that is I accept that sometimes it is necessary to take a risk, and even do something that would be unnacceptable normally (an example is if someone's leg is pinned under a girder and the building is about to collapse, it is morally defensible to cut their leg off to save their life. I know this is an extreme example, but it is the only one that came to mind) to save someone's life. But I would only feel happy about people doing this in my country if they know and recognise it is dangerous, and know that it is the only way (having the experience and judgement to know that).

The thing I do fear is that totally inexperienced people will come in with reckless disregard and make things a lot, lot worse.

In regards to clause 3: "...provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers."

I trust that this is, partly, to deal with unscrupolous individuals who might want to use the situation to inflict harm upon someone, correct?

In an emergency situation, one sometimes has to committ dangerous acts to save lives. You know it's dangerous, you recognize the danger, and there's a significant chance that what you're going to do is not going to work, but if you don't do it, then someone is going to die. "Desperate times call for desperate measures."

Right.

To illustrate this with two examples:

Non-life threatening example ...

An engineer from say Frisbeeteria comes to Miervatia in response to an erruption of Mt. Delenn (a volcano) and volunteers his time to access which Miervatian buildings are structurally safe following a lava flow through the Pitt (a valley that runs under Miervatia City) and instead of actually using a punch list (basically an engineering check list of structural flaws) decides that since Miervatian worship the "Mod Gods" that a magic 8-ball would be an appropriate tool to use to decide which buildings are safe and which ones aren't.

Though the Frisbeeterian engineer will be immune to professional liability, use of a magic 8-ball to determine structural integrity is reckless behavior. While the magic 8-ball might work, if it should fail and my building should fall apart while I'm taking a shower, if I'm left standing in the buff, the Frisbeeterian engineer may be then brought to a civil court for his / her reckless behavior.

OK, that is a silly example, but what about ...

A serious example of a life or death situation ...

A Hersfoldian medic volunteers to help with first aid, and while treating the lava burn viticms notices that one poor man has a limb that must be immediately removed or the man will die. Under Hersfoldian medical practice, this medic has taken an oath to do no harm, but realizes that if he waits to ask about chopping off the man's limb, that the man will die. Unaware that in Klatuu (where this man just happens to be from) that if you are crippled, you are cast out into the Desert to meet the sandworms, the Hersfoldian medic chops off this Klatuu's leg. The Klatuu later wakens and seeks to sue the Hersfoldian. The Hersfoldian volunteered to help out and followed the rules of his nation's medical practice. It wasn't the fault of the Hersfoldian to not realize that Klatuu prefer to die than be treated for anything other than a hang-over. The Herfoldian would then be protected by the Good Samatiran laws.


Now for a less extreme and much more likely situation ...

The lava flow damages a building. The Frisbeeterian engineer looks at the building and makes a quick professional judgement, "It might fall down." He informs for the Miervatian rescue crews that "It is too dangerous to enter, don't." It turns out that a Nitko woman and child are trapped inside, but the Frisbeeterian said it is unsafe to enter. Days pass. The building fails to fall ... the Nitko both die for lack of medical aid. Who is at fault? The Frisbeeterian is in fact a structural engineer and the CCSM allowed him to help. He looked at the building and noted that 50% of the exterior load bearing walls were damanged by the debris flow. In his professional opinion, the building was at risk of collapse should there be an earthquake of minor magnitude or if the wind would gust. He felt that the emergency crews would also be dead if they helped the wounded child and mother. The Frisbeeterian is *not* liable in a CCSM civil court for failure of duty.

As diplomats we usually have the luxury of time on our hands. Emergency response teams don't. They have only their professional experience to guide them through these disasters. It is the moral responsibility of governments to assure that only the best and most qualified first responders help ... and it also is the moral responsibility of citizens to give away a minor right, that being the right to just sue somebody who is helping you without good cause, in order to encourage "good samaritans" to come and help us all.

Without standardized laws, volunteers have to weigh their ability to help with their own safety (economic or otherwise).

Many nations are making these laws on their own, but my government feels that these policies should be encouraged in order to save lives. You'll notice that I've left the exact policies of these good samaritan laws some what vague. While I'm arguing for standardization, my government realizes that the best and most effective laws are locally drafted. It is in the interest of your governments and citizens to stay true to the spirit of the idea of protecting the people who risk their lives to help us all, but at the same time, the challenge really is in finding a way to make this happen that is consistent with your local laws and customs. I'm confident that this is not a difficult task.

[Huh, kinda long ... that is what happens when I stumble back from Oktober Fest! Mmmmmm ... unflitered beers!] ;)

Actually, I like the idea. It's kinda like humanitarian aid for the masses of States on this site.

You've got my support. :)

I've submitted the proposal under the title "Good Samaritan Laws".

Last night was a truely bizarre situtation.

When I first checked on my proposal, it had nearly 60 endorsements (and the Chipmunks were around 158). When I looked back mine had lost a few (and his eventually feel to 153). :(

Basically UN Delegates were disappearing. Fortunately his proposal made it in the queue, but mine lost enough endorsements to not make it in. I'll only be resubmitting the "Good Samaritan Laws" proposal for now. Tonight I'll telegram the ~60 nations that previously endorsed it and with luck there won't be a UN Delegate eating glich again this time, because I was actually anticipating getting around 80 endorsements this time.

When our region's new Delegate gets her breath back after her dizzying rise to fame, my nation will send ambassadors to beg her on bended knee to endorse this proposal. For the meantime, I have merely asked her nicely to have a look at it.

May I congratulate you on your use of the metaphor, "the three laws of robotics". Not only does this encapsulate your arguments superbly, it also pays homage to a writer who would surely have been a great NS player, if someone had put him on to it.

Would the phrase "to quickly respond" be a similarly respectful nod to another SF great who, regrettably, has had to boldly go?

...so it goes.

After the shift in delegates the proposal only got 69 endorsements (with a few horus of life still left). I'll be resubmitting the proposal because I've gotten a number of telegrams encouraging me to continue to pursue this proposal. I'd still ask delegates to endorse it, in the event of a late come from behind rush today. :)

EDIT: It only needs 48 endorsements now, which means there is a chance it could make it to queue this go around.

The proposal currently needs only 42 more endorsements. Er it is unlikely that it will make it this time, but due to the interest others have shown via telegrams and on regional boards, I will be resubmitting it tomorrow if it doesn't make it in the queue.

Give me a list of some of the delegates you need to TG and the telegram you want me to send and I can send it to them tomorrow. I mean, I'm not exactly loaded with time, so I can't TG 300 of them, but I think I can do 30-50. If it helps. Then again I might not exactly be the most popular guy after tomorrow, so you might not want me representing, but I'm still willing. Either way.

Give me a list of some of the delegates you need to TG and the telegram you want me to send and I can send it to them tomorrow. I mean, I'm not exactly loaded with time, so I can't TG 300 of them, but I think I can do 30-50. If it helps. Then again I might not exactly be the most popular guy after tomorrow, so you might not want me representing, but I'm still willing. Either way.

I've resubmitted the proposal. When I crashed last night, it had 95 endorsements.

I'll telegram you with a list of 30 nations, that voted yes on your resolution and gladly accept your help! :)

Help! I've lost my Delegateship! Does anyone know where its gone? I lost my endorsement, but I know for a fact that this guy hasn't been on his nation since I last checked.

When I get it back I will endorse this.

Help! I've lost my Delegateship! Does anyone know where its gone? I lost my endorsement, but I know for a fact that this guy hasn't been on his nation since I last checked.

When I get it back I will endorse this.

Last weekend there was an error in the game and many (I was estimating more than 1 in 6) delegates lost half of their endorsements. The delegate position was then rolled over to the then highest endorsement count.

You'll need to telegram everybody again and start the process over. :(

At present the proposal has 103 endorsements and the requirement is at 134. There are still a number of UN Delegates whom I expect to endorse the proposal when they return, but they are out for the weekend.

It still couldn't hurt for others to check it out. ;)

Thank you all for your patience and endorsements.

I go forth to beg our regional delegate. An endorsement from a simple UN member doesn't count, does it? I can't find any button to push to make it so. If just saying it does it, then: Ardchoille endorses the Good Samaritan Resolution. (Please bear with me, folks, I'm technologically challenged.)

I go forth to beg our regional delegate. An endorsement from a simple UN member doesn't count, does it? I can't find any button to push to make it so. If just saying it does it, then: Ardchoille endorses the Good Samaritan Resolution. (Please bear with me, folks, I'm technologically challenged.)

The thought is very much appreciated, but the only power UN members have is to try and convince UN Delegates to endorse the proposals.

Forunately, barring a tragic mishap, the proposal had 144 endorsements when I last checked, so it should be reaching the UN floor in the next few days.

OOC: The dilemma that may occur now will be a personal one, since originally I had planned for this to reach the floor today ... I'll be unable to defend my proposal Friday - Monday, as I'll be in Canada. However, maybe this is a good thing. :)

The thought is very much appreciated, but the only power UN members have is to try and convince UN Delegates to endorse the proposals.

Forunately, barring a tragic mishap, the proposal had 144 endorsements when I last checked, so it should be reaching the UN floor in the next few days.

OOC: The dilemma that may occur now will be a personal one, since originally I had planned for this to reach the floor today ... I'll be unable to defend my proposal Friday - Monday, as I'll be in Canada. However, maybe this is a good thing. :)

I will be happy to defend your proposal for you in your abscence :}

I'm opposed to this on the grounds that no one should possess legal immunity. And as I read this, that is exactly what it grants. It is for the courts to decide liability.

I'm opposed to this on the grounds that no one should possess legal immunity. And as I read this, that is exactly what it grants. It is for the courts to decide liability.

But it is limited liability for decisions taken only in respect of the rescue/humanitarian effort. These are people who are coming at no cost to rescue your citizens after a disaster of some type. And since they are coming to help, and are invited by your government to be of assistance, they should not be working under the fear that everything they do will be watched, and that they could be sued for thousands of (insert currency here) because they do something that seemed like a good idea but turned out not to be.

This will not give them a licence to go shooting people, or to rob your citizens, or murder them in the dead of night, or steal from your banks. It will just protect them from being sued while they are working to save your citizens lives. Which, given they are doing all this at no cost to your government and your people, I think is a fair exchange.

Sorry abt my earlier query. I have now read the stickies, which, of course, I should have done earlier, and now understa ... oh migod no! Keep that man with the golden frying-pan away from me!

*puffing, while being chased by an exasperated Komokom who is sick of telling people to read the stickies* ... You're doing a good job defending, TilEnca. I've already voted in favour and asked my region to do so, too. This is such a sensible, rational resolution ... (a comment which will probably put the mockers on it, totally).

not sure if this is the proper place to post this but I disagree with the last line of the proposal most of all. For Example If my nation sends "Good Samaritans" to a country of the Reich. And after the disaster is over they are held to test their aryan purity and any are found to be of Semetic decent; then they can be held for domestic crimes. I think the UN should Support Full Diplomatic Immunity, with the hosting country having the option of severing diplomatic relations for gross abuse of said immunity. As well as a Judicial Review of any Diplomats (Samaritan or otherwise) that blatantly violate the spirit(as opposed to the written legal deffinitions for all those book lawyers) of the Good Sameritan.

not sure if this is the proper place to post this but I disagree with the last line of the proposal most of all. For Example If my nation sends "Good Samaritans" to a country of the Reich. And after the disaster is over they are held to test their aryan purity and any are found to be of Semetic decent; then they can be held for domestic crimes. I think the UN should Support Full Diplomatic Immunity, with the hosting country having the option of severing diplomatic relations for gross abuse of said immunity. As well as a Judicial Review of any Diplomats (Samaritan or otherwise) that blatantly violate the spirit(as opposed to the written legal deffinitions for all those book lawyers) of the Good Sameritan.

The only problem with the Full Diplomtic Immunity is that then the relief workers can not be prosectued for any crimes - such as theft, rape, murder, pillage and so forth. Which, as you can imagine, would be unacceptable for a fair amount of nations.
And even if the diplomatic relations are severed, the crimes have still happened, and the people will have the immunity and consequently can cross back to their own country before they can be prosecuted.

That's the point, there is no check or balance that can cover every eventuality. The Idea is that those answering the good samaritan call, will be member nations of the UN. As member nations their personal conduct is open for review by the UN. Their conduct realates back to the UN, and their Judicial Review should be at the discression of the UN. If the UN Expedites them back to face Justice for crimes then it is made by a fair governing body, following the resolutions in both writing and Spirit. If a member nation has representitives that rape, pillage, murder (or even torture) then use the diplomatic immunity; their nation must bear the brunt of economic sanctions and perhaps even police action. We must be responsible for our own on a global level, part of that responsibility is to give protection full and without reservation to those representives carryiong out humanitarian aid work. Another part of that responsibility is to weed out those that abuse this great responsibility of full immunity. Just as we would police any nation perpetrating crimes against humanity as a whole.

3. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to civil liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers; and

I dont think I understand this one. :headbang: To me it seems like it says, they are not liable if they messthings up more than they already are and that we cant do anything about it. Can some one clear this up for me???

3. CALLS UPON all nations to develop domestic “Good Samaritan” laws granting volunteer based first responder teams, including technical and engineering professionals, some immunity to civil liability associated with work and professional judgments made while rendering disaster assistance provided that they do not act with reckless or intentional disregard of known dangers; and

I dont think I understand this one. :headbang: To me it seems like it says, they are not liable if they messthings up more than they already are and that we cant do anything about it. Can some one clear this up for me???

That is actually what it is saying.

The people who are crossing the border are coming on your behalf, and with your permission (another part of the proposal says you can deny access to anyone). They are risking their life and limb to help you in a time of national disaster.

All of them will be good at what they do (you can stipulate that before the cross the border), but since this is a time of national disaster, speed is of the essence, and it's not beyond reason they may make a perfectly sound judgement that turns out to be wrong. It might not be wrong because they are bad at what they do, but because during an emergency you have less time to think than in normal circumstances.

And it is under this set of circumstances that this law seeks to protect them from being sued by various people in your nation.

They are coming to help you, and as such they should not be sued if they can't help.